Sunday, December 12, 2010

Swindle of the YearBy Charles Krauthammer Barack Obama won the great tax-cut showdown of 2010 — and House Democrats don’t have a clue that he did.

In the deal struck this week, the president negotiated the biggest stimulus in American history, larger than his $814 billion 2009 stimulus package. It will pump a trillion borrowed Chinese dollars into the U.S. economy over the next two years — which just happen to be the two years of the run-up to the next presidential election. This is a defeat?

If Obama had asked for a second stimulus directly, he would have been laughed out of town. Stimulus I, was so reviled that the Democrats banished the word from their lexicon throughout the 2010 campaign. And yet, despite a very weak post-election hand, Obama got the Republicans to offer to increase spending and cut taxes by $990 billion over two years — $630 billion of it above and beyond extension of the Bush tax cuts.

No mean achievement. After all, these are the same Republicans who spent 2010 running on limited government and reducing the debt. And this budget-busting occurs less than a week after the president’s deficit commission had supposedly signaled a new national consensus of austerity and frugality.Some Republicans are crowing that Stimulus II is the Republican way — mostly tax cuts — rather than the Democrats’ spending orgy of Stimulus I. That’s consolation? This just means that Republicans are two years too late. Stimulus II will still blow another near–$1 trillion hole in the budget.

At great cost that will have to be paid after this newest free lunch, the package will add as much as one percent to GDP and lower the unemployment rate by about 1.5 percentage points. That could easily be the difference between victory and defeat in 2012.

Obama is no fool. While getting Republicans to boost his own reelection chances, he gets them to make a mockery of their newfound, second-chance, post-Bush, tea-party, this-time-we’re-serious persona of debt-averse fiscal responsibility.

And he gets all this in return for what? For a mere two-year postponement of a mere 4.6-point increase in marginal tax rates for upper incomes. And an estate-tax rate of 35 percent — it jumps insanely from zero to 55 percent on Jan. 1 — that is somewhat lower than what the Democrats wanted.

No, cries the Left: Obama violated a sacred principle. A 39.6 percent tax rate versus 35 percent is a principle? “This is the public-option debate all over again,” said Obama at his Tuesday news conference. He is right.

The Left never understood that to nationalize health care there is no need for a public option because Obamacare turns the private insurers into public utilities.

The Left is similarly clueless on the tax-cut deal: In exchange for temporarily forgoing a small rise in upper-income rates, Obama pulled out of a hat a massive new stimulus — what the Left has been begging for since the failure of Stimulus I, but was heretofore politically unattainable.

Obama’s public exasperation with this infantile leftism is both perfectly understandable and politically adept. It is his way back to at least the appearance of centrist moderation. The only way he will get a second look from the independents who elected him in 2008 — and who abandoned the Democrats in 2010 — is by changing the prevailing (and correct) perception that he is a man of the Left.

Hence that news-conference attack on what the administration calls the “professional Left” for its combination of sanctimony and myopia. It was Obama’s Sister Souljah moment. It had a prickly, irritated sincerity — their ideological stupidity and inability to see the “long game” really do get under Obama’s skin — but a decidedly calculated quality, too. Where, after all, does the Left go? Stay home on Election Day 2012? Vote Republican?No, says the current buzz, the Left will instead challenge Obama for the Democratic nomination.

Really now? For decades, African-Americans have been this party’s most loyal constituency. They vote nine-to-one Democratic through hell and high water, through impeachment and recession, through everything. After four centuries of enduring much, African-Americans finally see one of their own achieve the presidency. And their own party is going to deny him a shot at reelection?

Not even Democrats are that stupid. The remaining question is whether they are just stupid enough to not understand — and therefore vote down — the swindle of the year just pulled off by their own president.

Friday, December 10, 2010

The story begins at Michigan State University(MSU), with a mechanical engineering professor named Indred Wichman.Wichman sent an e-mail to the Muslim Student's Association.

The e-mail was in response to the students' protest of the Danish cartoons that portrayed the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist. The group had complained the cartoons were 'hate speech.'

Enter Professor Wichman. In his e-mail, he said the following:____________________________

Dear Muslim Association, As a professor of Mechanical Engineering here at MSU, I intend to protest your protest.

I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like beheadings of civilians, cowardly attacks on public buildings, suicide murders, murders of Catholic priests (the latest in Turkey), burnings of Christian churches, the continued persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt, the imposition of Sharia law on non-Muslims, the rapes of Scandinavian girls and women (called 'whores' in your culture), the murder of film directors in Holland, and the rioting and looting in Paris France.

This is what offends me, a soft-spoken person and academic, and many, many of my colleagues. I counsel you dissatisfied, aggressive, brutal, and uncivilized slave-trading Muslims to be very aware of this as you proceed with your infantile 'protests.'

If you do not like the values of the West - see the First Amendment - you are free to leave.

I hope for God's sake that most of you choose that option. Please return to your ancestral homelands and build them up yourselves instead of troubling Americans. Cordially, I. S. Wichman Professor of Mechanical Engineering ________________________________

As you can imagine, The Muslim group at the university didn't like this too well.

They're demanding that Wichman be reprimanded, that the university impose mandatory diversity training for faculty, And mandate a seminar on hate and discrimination for all freshmen.

Now, the local chapter of CAIR has jumped into the fray. CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, apparently doesn't believe that the good professor had the right to express his opinion.

For its part, the university is standing its ground in support of Professor Wichman,

Saying the e-mail was private, and they don't intend to publicly condemn his remarks. We are in a war!

This political correctness crap is getting old and its killing us! _________________

Saturday, December 4, 2010

This information was forwarded to me and I feel it is VERY important to share with all my loyal visitors!

I did some research and found good references to the authenticity of the information:1) At The American Military History web site - Chapter 16 -(351) to be more precise... HERE2) At The Army National Guard Archives... HERE3) At The National Archives - #4.51... HEREAnd,4) A Congressional Biography of Charles William Frederick Dick... HERE

Follows is the message that was forwarded to me:____________________________________________

The "DICK ACT of 1902" . . .CAN’T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) The Trump Card Enacted by the Congress Further Asserting the Second Amendment as Untouchable.The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.

The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for, are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army.

The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right, and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.

The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; To do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.

The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; To suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.

Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, “the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States.”

The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutiona​l that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.

(Earlier)- During the war with England, an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada. The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.

The fact is, that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states.

Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.

Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states: “The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States.”

In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, “... that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; And thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it.”

“This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose. Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power.”The Honorable William Gordon

With over 300 Million guns in the United States, the federal CORPORATE government (federal gov't defined as corporation under 28 U.S.C. Section 3002 (15) and the states are subdivisions of the corporation, 28 U.S.C. Section 3002 (10), cannot ban arms or stop people from defending themselves against a tyrannical government.

I read somewhere that just the State of North Carolina can call up 20-30 divisions of unorganized militia (would be about 200,000-300,000 armed North Carolinians) on a moment's notice. Imagine the State of Texas or Oklahoma if that's the case?

Amazingly, even if the US tries to ban all arms through backdoor measures like domestic violence laws (Violence Against Women Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 922 (g)) or through an unconstitutional U.N. declaration adopted by our current Marxist unconstitutional Congress, no treaty can supercede the Constitution!

"This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." - Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.

This case involved the question: Does the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (treaty) supersede the U.S. Constitution? Keep reading. The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that,

"... No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution."

Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, "This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...’

"There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result..."

"It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions." (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).

"In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined."

Do you understand what the Supreme Court said here? No Executive Order, Presidential Directive, Executive Agreement, no NAFTA, GATT/WTO agreement/treaty, passed by ANYONE, can supersede the Constitution. - FACT. No question!

At this point the Court paused to quote from another of their Opinions; Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 at pg. 267 where the Court held at that time that... "The treaty power as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or a change in the character of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter without its consent."

"Assessing the GATT/WTO parasitic organism in light of this part of the Opinion, we see that it cannot attach itself to its host (our Republic or States) in the fashion the traitors in our government wish, without our acquiescing to it."

The Reid Court continues with its Opinion:"This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which MUST comply with the Constitution, is on full parity with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict, renders the treaty null. It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument."

The U.S. Supreme court could not have made it more clear: TREATIES DO NOT OVERRIDE THE CONSTITUTION, AND CANNOT, IN ANY FASHION, AMEND IT !!! CASE CLOSED._____________________

Thursday, December 2, 2010

Assault Weapons and The TruthFrom a post by Jarhead, over atNoWeWont...

The Obama administration has nominated an anti-gun zealot as the U.S.’s top gun cop.

The Obama administration is moving into high gear in putting gun-control advocates into important government positions.

The administration’s nominee to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), Andrew Traver, should be of particular concern.

His attacks on the civilian use of so-called 'assault weapons' raise real questions about his willingness to distort the truth for political purposes. The person nominated to be the nation’s top gun cop shouldn’t use inaccurate descriptions to scare people into supporting gun control.

Mr. Traver is the special agent in charge of the BATFE’s Chicago field division. Therefore, he knows what was covered by the federal assault-weapons ban that sunset in 2004.

But in November 2009, NBC interviewed Traver and reported: “Traver says the power and randomness of the heavy caliber, military-style weapons make them so dangerous not only to people, but to police. They’re so powerful, body armor can’t withstand a hit, and they’re so difficult to control, their bullets often get sprayed beyond the intended targets, striking innocent victims even when they’re in their own homes.”

The list of problems with Mr. Traver’s claims is very long. If he really believes that these weapons fire unacceptably “heavy caliber” bullets, he is going to have to ban virtually all rifles. (Including...) Small-game rifles — guns designed to kill squirrels and rabbits without destroying too much meat — typically fire .22-caliber bullets, which are only slightly smaller than the .223-caliber bullets fired by the M16 (used by the U.S. military since Vietnam) and the newer M4 carbine (used in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars). Deer-hunting rifles fire rounds that are very similar to those used by the AK-47.

Speaking of M16s, M4s, and AK-47s, Traver is correct when he states that the guns covered by the federal assault-weapons ban were “military-style weapons.”

But he fails to note that this really just deals with style — the cosmetics of the guns, not how they actually operate. The guns covered by the ban were not the machine guns actually used by the military, but civilian, semi-automatic versions of those guns.

The civilian version of the AK-47 may look like the guns used by militaries around the world, but it is different. It fires essentially the same bullets as deer-hunting rifles at the same rapidity (one bullet per pull of the trigger), and does the same damage.

On penetrating body armor, Mr. Traver leaves out one important detail: Rifles in general are often able to penetrate body armor simply because their bullets travel faster than those fired from handguns. The same can be said for going through the walls of houses.

But if he had said that deer-hunting rifles can often penetrate walls and lower-level types of body armor, it is unlikely that his comments would have generated the same fear.

Unfortunately, Mr. Traver has done more than make clearly inaccurate claims about so-called “assault weapons.”

He has supported banning .50-caliber rifles, and regulations that would force many gun shows to close down, and the Chicago handgun ban, and repealing the Tiahrt Amendment, which protects sensitive trace data from being misused in frivolous municipal lawsuits against gun makers.

He also worked with the Joyce Foundation, which has funded gun-ban groups such as the Violence Policy Center, on the “Gun Violence Reduction Project.”

The fact that Mr. Traver uses the same misleading claims as groups such as the Brady Campaign shouldn’t make it too surprising that gun-control groups are applauding his nomination.

Nor is Traver’s nomination very surprising after President Obama appointed two strong anti-self-defense members to the Supreme Court.

But Mr. Traver’s nomination is dangerous. Making up claims about guns to demonize them is beyond what is acceptable for someone who wants a position in which he will be regulating American gun ownership.

Jarhead’s Comment; First of all, The Joyce Foundation, which has funded gun-ban groups such as the Violence Policy Center is sponsored and supported by "guess who?"...... "George Soros."

Now the truth; For the third year in a row, violent crime has declined in the United States while increasing numbers of American citizens own firearms and are licensed to carry, a trend that belies predictions of anti-gunners that more guns will result in more crime, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Preliminary data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report shows that the violent crime rate went down 5.5 percent in 2009, compared to statistics from 2008. This covers all four categories of violent crime: murder, robbery, aggravated assault and forcible rape. Violent crime went down 4 percent in metropolitan counties and 3 percent elsewhere, according to the FBI.

At the same time, the agency’s National Instant Check System reports continued increases in the number of background check requests and the National Shooting Sports Foundation has reported increased federal firearms excise tax allocations to state wildlife agencies, an indication that more guns and ammunition are being purchased.

“This translates to one irrefutable fact,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “There are more guns in private hands than ever before, yet crime rates have declined.

In plain English, this means that gun prohibitionists have been consistently wrong. Higher rates of gun ownership have not resulted in more bloodshed, as the gun ban lobby has repeatedly forecast with its ‘sky-is-falling’ rhetoric.

“According to the FBI,” he continued, “the murder rate fell last year 7.2 percent in larger cities. Robbery declined more than 8 percent and forcible rape was down 3.1 percent.

It might just be that criminals are less likely to attack someone out of fear their intended victim is armed. Robbers might be discouraged by the growing potential that the clerk behind the counter is willing to fight back. Maybe would-be rapists are deterred by the possibility that they might get shot.

“For many years,” Gottlieb observed, “anti-gunners made all kinds of wild predictions that higher rates of gun ownership and the expansion of shall-issue carry permits would leave neighborhoods awash in blood. The data proves otherwise. America should turn its back on the gun prohibition lobby and their insidious policy of victim disarmament.”

This is what they do not want you to see, they want the anti-gun establishment to bolster tp the ignorant masses that crime goes up when there are more weapons in the hands of law-abiding citizens. Nothing could further from the truth. View the statistics from 1990 to 2009 here;

Monday, November 29, 2010

Serious Questions about the Obama Administration's Incompetence in the Wikileaks FiascoBy Sarah Palin on Monday, November 29, 2010 at 12:17pm

We all applaud the successful thwarting of the Christmas-Tree Bomber and hope our government continues to do all it can to keep us safe. However, the latest round of publications of leaked classified U.S. documents through the shady organization called Wikileaks raises serious questions about the Obama administration’s incompetent handling of this whole fiasco.

First and foremost, what steps were taken to stop Wikileaks director Julian Assange from distributing this highly sensitive classified material especially after he had already published material not once but twice in the previous months? Assange is not a “journalist,” any more than the “editor” of al Qaeda’s new English-language magazine Inspire is a “journalist.” He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands. His past posting of classified documents revealed the identity of more than 100 Afghan sources to the Taliban. Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?

What if any diplomatic pressure was brought to bear on NATO, EU, and other allies to disrupt Wikileaks’ technical infrastructure? Did we use all the cyber tools at our disposal to permanently dismantle Wikileaks? Were individuals working for Wikileaks on these document leaks investigated? Shouldn’t they at least have had their financial assets frozen just as we do to individuals who provide material support for terrorist organizations?

Most importantly, serious questions must also be asked of the U.S. intelligence system. How was it possible that a 22-year-old Private First Class could get unrestricted access to so much highly sensitive information? And how was it possible that he could copy and distribute these files without anyone noticing that security was compromised?

The White House has now issued orders to federal departments and agencies asking them to take immediate steps to ensure that no more leaks like this happen again. It’s of course important that we do all we can to prevent similar massive document leaks in the future. But why did the White House not publish these orders after the first leak back in July? What explains this strange lack of urgency on their part?

We are at war. American soldiers are in Afghanistan fighting to protect our freedoms. They are serious about keeping America safe. It would be great if they could count on their government being equally serious about that vital task.- Sarah Palin________________________________

Well said Mrs. Palin... Very well said...It is indeed difficult to explain why our 'fearless leader' has done absolutely nothing...

I'm in total agreement with Congressman Peter King... When he claims this attack by Wikileaks is worse than a military attack! This kid has more issues than The Satruday Evening Post! String him up! - At least get him some therapy!

WikiLeaks Are A Bunch of Terrorists, Says Leading U.S. Ccongressman As No10 Warns of Threat to National SecurityBy James Chapman, Gerri Peev and Ian Drury

One of American's leading politicians today called for WikiLeaks to be reclassified as a terrorist organisation after the latest release of top secret intelligence documents.Congressman Peter King, the incoming chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, claimed that the data breach was 'worse than a military attack.''I am calling on the attorney general and supporting his efforts to fully prosecute WikiLeaks and its founder for violating the Espionage Act,' the Republican said.

He added he had written to the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to ask if the group could be classed as a terrorist organisation.

'(The release) has put American lives at risk all over the world,' he said.

'This is worse even than a physical attack on Americans, it's worse than a military attack.'

The Obama administration was today attempting damage limitation after the publication of 250,000 top secret documents from embassies across the world.

Highly embarrassing missives from American diplomats revealed their real impressions of world leaders and highly sensitive political discussions.

These included the revelations that Mrs Clinton had asked for surveillance of UN diplomats and that the Saudi royal family had urged an attack on Iran.

But the leaks so far appear to have been less damaging than first thought. Instead anger has turned on WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. He is already facing allegations of rape in Sweden and Australia police are considering if he had broken any laws in releasing the information.

The British government was reeling from a wave of damaging revelations which emerged in the biggest intelligence leak in history.

Secret U.S. embassy cables portray David Cameron as a 'political lightweight' and describe how a former Labour minister was a 'hound dog' who persistently chased women.

There were also sensational claims of ‘inappropriate behaviour’ by Prince Andrew, who is a UK trade envoy.

Downing Street today condemned the disclosures but said that officials expected several more days of revelations.

'The leaks and their publication are damaging to national security in the United States and in Britain, and elsewhere,' a spokesman said.

The information come in a tranche of 250,000 classified documents released by WikiLeaks, which today confirmed it had come under cyber attack ahead of the release.

Thursday, November 25, 2010

Sunday, November 21, 2010

The T.S. of A Takes ControlBy George Will - The Washington Post - 11/21/2010

Fifty years ago, William F. Buckley wrote a memorable complaint about the fact that Americans do not complain enough. His point, like most of the points he made during his well-lived life, is, unfortunately, more pertinent than ever. Were he still with us, he would favor awarding the Presidential Medal of Freedom, which he received in 1991, to John Tyner, who, when attempting to board a plane in San Diego, was provoked by some Transportation Security Administration personnel.

When Buckley was asked how he came up with topics for three columns a week, he jauntily replied that the world annoyed him that frequently. The fecundity of the world as an irritant was on display one winter evening in 1960 when Buckley found himself in an insufferably hot car on a New Haven Railroad commuter train from Grand Central Station to his Stamford, Conn., home. Everyone was acutely uncomfortable; no one was complaining.

"In a more virile age, I thought, the passengers would have seized the conductor and strapped him down on a seat over the radiator to share the fate of his patrons." But he had "nonchalantly walked down the gauntlet of eighty sweating American freemen, and not one of them had asked him to explain why the passengers in that car had been consigned to suffer."

Buckley, who was gifted at discerning the metaphysical significance of the quotidian, thought that he saw civilization tottering on its pedestal. He was not mistaken:

"It isn't just the commuters, whom we have come to visualize as a supine breed who have got onto the trick of suspending their sensory faculties twice a day while they submit to the creeping dissolution of the railroad industry. It isn't just they who have given up trying to rectify irrational vexations. It is the American people everywhere."

Happily, not quite everywhere today. Not anywhere where Tyners are.

When TSA personnel began looking for weapons of mass destruction in Tyner's underpants, he objected to having his groin patted. A TSA functionary, determined to do his duty pitilessly - his duty is to administer the latest (but surely not the last) wrinkle in the government's ever-intensifying protection of us - said: "If you're not comfortable with that, we can escort you back out, and you don't have to fly today."

Tyner: "I don't understand how a sexual assault can be made a condition of my flying."

TSA: "This is not considered a sexual assault."

Tyner: "It would be if you weren't the government. . . ."

TSA: "Upon buying your ticket, you gave up a lot of rights."

Oh? John Locke, call your office.

The theory - perhaps by now it seems like a quaint anachronism - on which the nation was founded is, or was: Government is instituted to protect preexisting natural rights essential to the pursuit of happiness. Today, that pursuit often requires flying, which sometimes involves the wanding of 3-year-olds and their equally suspect teddy bears.

What the TSA is doing is mostly security theater, a pageant to reassure passengers that flying is safe. Reassurance is necessary if commerce is going to flourish and if we are going to get to grandma's house on Thursday to give thanks for the Pilgrims and for freedom. If grandma is coming to our house, she may be wanded while barefoot at the airport because democracy - or the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment; anyway, something - requires the amiable nonsense of pretending that no one has the foggiest idea what an actual potential terrorist might look like. But enough, already. Enough trivializing important values - e.g., air safety - by monomaniacal attempts to maximize them. Disproportion is the common denominator of almost all of life's absurdities. Automobile safety is important. But attempting to maximize it would begin (but by no means end) with forbidding left turns.

Bureaucracies try to maximize their missions. They can't help themselves. Adult supervision is required to stand athwart this tendency, yelling "Stop!"

Again, Buckley:"Every year, whether the Republican or the Democratic Party is in office, more and more power drains away from the individual to feed vast reservoirs in far-off places; and we have less and less say about the shape of events which shape our future." The average American has regular contact with the federal government at three points - the IRS, the post office and the TSA. Start with that fact if you are formulating a unified field theory to explain the public's current political mood. _____________________________________Well said, Mr. Will... very well said!

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Muslim Group Advises Women Wearing Hijabs to Allow TSA ‘Enhanced Pat Downs’ Only on Head and Neck Area By Penny Starr The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has issued a travel warning to Muslim airline passengers on U.S. aircraft in response to the Transportation Safety Administration’s "enhanced pat down" policy that went into effect in late October.

CAIR said Muslims who object to full-body scans for religious reasons should know their rights if they are required to undergo a pat-down, including asking for the procedure to be done in a private place.

In addition, CAIR offered a “special recommendation” for Muslim women who wear a hijab, telling them they should tell the TSA officer that they may be searched only around the head and neck.

In the “special recommendations for Muslim women who wear hijab,” it states: "Before you are patted down, you should remind the TSA officer that they are only supposed to pat down the area in question, in this scenario, your head and neck. They SHOULD NOT subject you to a full-body or partial-body pat-down.”

It also states: “Instead of the pat-down, you can always request to pat down your own scarf, including head and neck area, and have the officers perform a chemical swipe of your hands.”

The new TSA pat-downs involving “head-to-toe” screening techniques follow recent airliner bombing attempts. Passengers who reject a full-body scan or who are selected for secondary screening may be searched using the enhanced pat-down.

“Pat downs are one important tool to help TSA detect hidden and dangerous items such as explosives,” a TSA statement issued on Oct. 28 stated. “Passengers should continue to expect an unpredictable mix of security layers that include explosives trace detection, advanced imaging technology, canine teams, among others.”

Posted on its Web site under “TSA’s Head-to-Toe Screening Policies,” the agency said how people are dressed may lead to closer inspection, including baggy or loose clothing. Those policies also include individuals being searched by a “professional” of the same sex.

“It is TSA's policy that passengers should be screened by an officer of the same gender in a professional, respectful manner,” the policy reads.

In February, the Figh Council of North America, a group of Islamic scholars, issued a fatwa, or religious ruling, that full-body scanners violate Islamic law.

“It is a violation of clear Islamic teaching that men or women be seen naked by other men and women,” the ruling states. “Islam highly emphasizes haya (modesty) and considers it part of the faith. The Qu’ran has commanded the believers, both men and women, to cover their private parts.”

CAIR endorsed the fatwa, according to a Feb. 21 article in the Detroit Free Press._________________________________So... Let me get this straight...Radical Muslim Terrorists have vowed to kill all Americans, and have demonstrated their serious intent several times, right?

And, the TSA insists that EVERY traveler, EXCEPT Muslims, will be either patted down or screened electronically, right?

So, God-fearing Americans suffer long lines and embarassing pat downs, while Muslims get a pass?What's wrong with this picture???

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Initially, I was just eager to see a move from the Clinton theatrics, policies and practices to a more Conservative, more respectful occupant in The White House. I really didn't care who it was, as long as it was a Conservative.

Then September 11, 2001 happened.All bets were canceled...

I think most Americans were in such deep shock after 9/11 that it likely didn't matter who was in The White House, as long as the office holder was respectful, sincere and showed a willingness to go after the people who attacked us.

George Bush fit the bill.

Many of us didn't know what kind of President he would turn out to be under normal circumstances. But we gave him the benefit of the doubt and he didn't betray our trust.

Sure... Everybody on the Left wants to vilify him now, but he carried the flag high and proud. Could you have dealt with such circumstances?

This article by Jim Angle starts out with the assumption that President Bush is 'reshaping his legacy'. I haven't read the book yet, but I really don't think President Bush is the kind of man that would want to go back in history to 'reshape' our view of what he did or how he did it... But, I'll reserve judgement untill after I read "Decision Points".

President Bush and His MemoirsBy Jim AngleIn his new book, President Bush takes a different approach to presidential memoirs. In "Decision Points," he lays out 14 decision points in his presidency, many not of his own choosing but rather forced on him by events.

Terry Holt, a former aide says, "when you read this book, you're gonna see a guy that really had the weight of world literally on his shoulders for almost every moment of the 8 years of his presidency."

And it started early, when terrorists launched the worst attack on American civilians in our history-- the day now known simply as 9/11. From then on, the war against terrorists and those who might help them defined the rest of the Bush presidency.

The U.S. soon launched attacks against Al Q'aeda and its supporters in Afghanistan.

Then came the war in Iraq. President Bush explains in the book how the US had spent years working through the United Nations, an effort to contain Saddam's ambitions for weapons.

"Saddam Hussein didn't just pursue weapons of mass destruction. He had used them," Bush writes. "He deployed mustard gas and nerve agents against the Iranians and massacred more than five thousand innocent civilians."

The latter is a reference to a chemical attack on a Kurdish village in Halabja where men, women and children fell where they were standing.

That episode and others, convinced President Bush and intelligence agencies the world over that Saddam was hiding a massive weapons program including nuclear. And the former President tells Fox's Sean Hannity he was shocked when none were found.

"Unbelievably frustrating," he says. "Of course it was frustrating. It -- everybody thought he had WMD. Everybody being every intelligence service, everybody in the administration. Hannity responded, "A lot of Democrats said it." President Bush added, "Yes, a lot of members of Congress." In fact, the most prominent of democrats -- those who ran for President against Mr. Bush -- repeatedly expressed the same conviction.

Former Senator Al Gore said in 2002 that, "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

The same year, Senator John Kerry said, "The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."

And he argued that required action."I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his (Saddam's) hands is a threat, a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the persian gulf region."

Once President Bush had made the decision, he wrote a letter to his father, who not only served as President but also tangled with Saddam Hussein himself. The younger Bush wrote to his Dad telling him he had ordered US troops into war. "I know i have taken the right action and do pray few will lose life. Iraq will be free, the world will be safer."

His father, the first President Bush, had fashioned a coalition of 34 nations to kick Saddam's invading forces out of Kuwait and chase them back into Iraq.

Bush the younger wonders about what might have happened had US forces gone after Saddam at that point, but he readily notes that the mission his father had asked Congress to approve was limited, and when the Iraqi forces had been pushed back into Iraq, fighting all the way, he withdrew US forces.

And when his son sent forces to Iraq, his father wrote, "You are doing the right thing...you have done that which you had to do."

"Maybe it helps a tiny bit," his father wrote, "as you face the roughest bunch of problems any President since Lincoln has faced: you carry the burden with strength and grace..."

A chapter in the ensuing debate over Iraq also angered Vice President Dick Cheney. He wanted the President to pardon his aide, Scooter Libby, who was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice in the investigation of who outed CIA officer Valerie Plame. She was involved in a dispute over pre-war intelligence.

The president decided to only commute the sentence and explains the move saying

"The jury verdict should be respected. In one of our final meetings, I informed Dick that I would not issue a pardon."

The Vice President was not happy, Mr Bush writes. "He stared at me with an intense look. "'I can't believe you're going to leave a soldier on the battlefield,' he said."

President Bush also faced controversies over entirely domestic matters, the biggest of which was Hurricane Katrina.

The former President writes that in Mississippi, "Eighty miles of coastline had been obliterated."

The storm missed New Orleans and it initially appeared safe. But then a storm surge broke though the levees and it suffered devastating flooding.

The President had worried as the storm was approaching because local officials were not acting. A concerned President Bush called Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco. "What's going on in New Orleans?," he asked.

Mayor Nagin had not ordered a mandatory evacuation and the President implored the Governor to step in.

"The mayor's got to order people to leave. That's the only way they'll listen. Call him and tell him," he urged.

Mayor Nagin finally did, but when the flooding came, the federal government couldn't help out unless asked.

"I was stuck with a resistant governor," Mr Bush writes, "and an antiquated law. I wanted to overrule them all. But at the time, I worried that the consequence could be a constitutional crisis."

But right or wrong, the Bush administration got most of the blame. And the former President writes that it, "eroded citizens trust in their government...and cast a cloud over his second term."

As I said, I'm going to reserve judgement about President Bush's supposed 'reshaping' of his legacy. And, I'm looking forward to reading "Decision Points".

Friday, November 5, 2010

I ran across this article and think it pretty well sums it up. I'll post just the headlines, so go to The CATO Institute's page for the full article... HERE.

10 Takeaways From The Big NightBy Michael D. TannerMichael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute

Having won a nearly unprecedented electoral victory, Republicans now find themselves in the position of the proverbial dog that caught the car, wondering what they should do next. Here are ten modest suggestions.

1. It's the Economy, Stupid.2. Obamacare Must Be Stopped. 3. Cut Spending, Not Just Taxes.4. Ban Earmarks.5. Level with the American People.6. Offer an Alternative.7. Investigate ... Carefully.8. Tackle Entitlements.9. Don't Fear a Shutdown.10. Remember, the Tea Party Is Still Out There.

I like this guy! He's straighforward and easy to read... AND he makes a heck of a lot of sense!

Thursday, November 4, 2010

Tuesday's election was about more than just the Republicans taking back The House and gaining seats in The Senate! It was, of course, a repudiation of Obama's policy and practices. Americans do not want to be a socialist country! PERIOD!

And, we saw an encouragingly strong turnout for Pro-Gun candidates and widespread support for The Second Amendment and the entire Shooting Sports Industry!

NSSF reports...Following an unprecedented and robust midterm NSSF Voter Education campaign, including the establishment of an NSSF Political Action Committee, the 2010 elections proved to be exceptionally strong for pro-industry candidates at both the federal and state levels. In the election, Republicans took back control of the House of Representatives while picking up six seats in the Senate and 10 governorships.

Though the Democrats maintain control of the Senate, pro-industry/gun Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) won re-election -- a move that keeps either anti-gun senators Chuck Schumer (D) or Dick Durbin (D) from assuming the leadership position.

At the state level, pro-gun/hunting measures fared very well. Three of four states overwhelmingly passed Right to Hunt and Fish measures, including: Arkansas, South Carolina and Tennessee. The state of Kansas passed, with 90 percent approval, the right to keep and bear arms. And in Montana, financing measures for big- game hunting were approved.

Also worth noting at the state level is the New York State Senate election results. This year NSSF waged a significant battle to defend the Empire State against ill-conceived microstamping legislation. Our win, largely attributable to NSSF being able to successfully educate state legislators on the problems of microstamping, may once again be tested as control of the state senate awaits final poll results in several close races.

In California, the projected winner in the race for Attorney General, Kamala Harris (D), will likely certify firearms microstamping as being unencumbered by patent restrictions, a move that will result in the implementation of the already passed microstamping law. NSSF is continuing to engage on this issue and will update industry members and enthusiasts as information becomes available.

ELECTION SYNPOSIS

SenatePro-industry senate candidates fared well in the election that ultimately saw the GOP make strides by flipping six seats in the Democrat-controlled chamber.

Saturday, October 30, 2010

Ya know, back in the day, we would use terms to describe people that would now be considered derogeratory. We said all kinds of things about people we didn't like, we didn't understand, or didn't know. Sure it was small minded... But it was honest criticism. And... times have changed.

But there is one term we used that immediately came to mind when I heard about this upcoming trip The President of The United States is goin to make to India.

If you're old enough, maybe you remember it too? You know, the "N" word followed by "Rich". "N***** Rich". Remember?

This was a term used to describe folks that came into big money unexpectedly and didn't know how to behave with all that new cash.

I think that's what we're seeing here.

This jackass of a President we have is throwing money around like a drunken sailor!

Let's see... The National Debt has continued to increase an average of $4.13 billion per day since he's been in office, and let's not forget that massive stimulus bill that will cost $814 billion over 10 years, and now he wants to go to India and spend even more of our money!

N***** Rich INDEED!!! He defines the very term!

It's reported that the presidential entourage will have 40 aircraft, including BOTH of the Air Force Ones that will ferry the president. Plus six armoured cars, including four Barack Mobiles and a Cadillac!

3 'Marine One' choppers will be dissassembled, shipped, then re-assembled over there. A guy's gotta have his Marine One! There's golf to be played in India!

This guy is a total disgrace to our country. He thinks being President entitles him to live like a muslim oil prince or a Mexican drug lord! Remember, this is a guy that won't even publish his birth records! But, we're stuck paying the freight for his world adventures!